Cocky to Coward: Trump to BAN Bolton from Senate Trial

[Snowball]

January 8, 2020:

(NY POST)
Trump says Bolton ‘knows nothing,’ up to Senate if he testifies in impeachment trial (https://nypost.com/2020/01/08/trump-says-bolton-knows-nothing-up-to-senate-if-he-testifies-in-impeachment-trial/)


Last Night/Today:
(The Hill)

Trump indicates he'd block Bolton's testimony 'for the sake of the office' (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/477819-trump-indicates-hed-block-boltons-testimony-for-the-sake-of-the)

(MSN)
Trump signals he will use executive privilege to block John Bolton testimony in Senate trial (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-signals-he-will-use-executive-privilege-to-block-john-bolton-testimony-in-senate-trial/)


https://youtu.be/KhitFysBbp8

[AngryCanadian]

Seeing how Trump knew Bolton would eventually testify against him why did Trump even bother with the Air Strikes in Iraq or stealing the oil in Syria? all to make the NeoCons happy? NeoCons arent ever going to be till they get what they want.

[Anti Globalist]

Bolton should be banned from making any sort of public statement.

[jmdrake]

Seeing how Trump knew Bolton would eventually testify against him why did Trump even bother with the Air Strikes in Iraq or stealing the oil in Syria? all to make the NeoCons happy? NeoCons arent ever going to be till they get what they want.

Isn't it obvious? Trump did the strike to appease the neocons but he didn't go further and respond to the Iranian retaliation which was clearly meant as a warning rather than a reprisal. So Bolton is trying to testify to keep the pressure on.

[jmdrake]

Bolton should be banned from making any sort of public statement.

Bolton should be banned..... Period.

[AngryCanadian]

Isn't it obvious? Trump did the strike to appease the neocons but he didn't go further and respond to the Iranian retaliation which was clearly meant as a warning rather than a reprisal. So Bolton is trying to testify to keep the pressure on.

I guess WW3 or a nuclear holocaust would be enough for these fake humans.

[nikcers]

If Ron Paul or Rand Paul were president would you want John Bolton at their impeachment trial?

[AngryCanadian]

If Ron Paul or Rand Paul were president would you want John Bolton at their impeachment trial?

If Your dear leader had a brain maybe he wouldn't agree nor retweet the tweet by Bolton in the first place? his the biggest death marchers neocon on the planet.

[nikcers]

If Your dear leader had a brain maybe he wouldn't agree nor retweet the tweet by Bolton in the first place? his the biggest death marchers neocon on the planet.

Your brain isn't even big enough to understand Trumps foreign policy. Thats why you think John Bolton is on his side but Trump doesnt even want him to be at the trial.

[AngryCanadian]

Your brain isn't even big enough to understand Trumps foreign policy. Thats why you think John Bolton is on his side but Trump doesnt even want him to be at the trial.

I know Trumps foreign policy very well threats and bullying, blackmailing tactics.


but Trump doesnt even want him to be at the trial
Probably because it would not help Trump win his impeachment case by having the world's biggest war monger and neocon.


I would be very careful with insulting and name calling...

[Snowball]

Justice Roberts will have to get involved.

There is precedent for the court ruling against presidents Nixon and Clinton E.P. invocations:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/442754-five-fights-over-executive-privilege

[Sammy]

Trump is right.

[Swordsmyth]

Bolton has nothing of relevance to say about the two idiotic articles of impeachment.

[Sonny Tufts]

Justice Roberts will have to get involved.

There is precedent for the court ruling against presidents Nixon and Clinton E.P. invocations

But none of these occurred in the context of an impeachment trial. It's doubtful the courts will get involved, so Trump will have to count on his lemmings in the Senate to refuse to allow Bolton to testify.

[Sonny Tufts]

Bolton has nothing of relevance to say about the two idiotic articles of impeachment.

How do you know?

[Swordsmyth]

How do you know?
Because neither is an impeachable offense.

[jmdrake]

If Ron Paul or Rand Paul were president would you want John Bolton at their impeachment trial?

If Ron or Rand were president John Bolton never would have been a part of the administration and so he wouldn't have had first hand knowledge of its inner workings.

[TheCount]

If Ron or Rand were president John Bolton never would have been a part of the administration and so he wouldn't have had first hand knowledge of its inner workings.

The best people!

[Snowball]

But none of these occurred in the context of an impeachment trial. It's doubtful the courts will get involved, so Trump will have to count on his lemmings in the Senate to refuse to allow Bolton to testify.

The court will most certainly be involved, and although the Clinton and Nixon rulings weren't part of a Senate impeachment "trial",
they were about an impeachment, and the SCOTUS was unanimous that the President cannot withhold pertinent information.

[Sonny Tufts]

The court will most certainly be involved, and although the Clinton and Nixon rulings weren't part of a Senate impeachment "trial",
they were about an impeachment, and the SCOTUS was unanimous that the President cannot withhold pertinent information.

But in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), involving the impeachment of judge Walter Nixon, the Court held that the judiciary may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to Congress. Nixon had complained that his "trial" consisted of a Senate Committee hearing the evidence, writing a report, and submitting it to the full Senate, which then convicted him on the basis of the report.